From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp0 ([2001:41d0:2:bcc0::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms0.migadu.com with LMTPS id 6BDbK/elsmBeTwEAgWs5BA (envelope-from ) for ; Sat, 29 May 2021 22:37:11 +0200 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:bcc0::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp0 with LMTPS id qDVBJ/elsmBIdAAA1q6Kng (envelope-from ) for ; Sat, 29 May 2021 20:37:11 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DDCB01F153 for ; Sat, 29 May 2021 22:37:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([::1]:42414 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ln5hl-0007A9-GN for larch@yhetil.org; Sat, 29 May 2021 16:37:09 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:53352) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ln5he-00079k-RN for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 29 May 2021 16:37:02 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:46228) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ln5he-0001LN-Jh for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 29 May 2021 16:37:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ln5he-0000VV-Gs for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 29 May 2021 16:37:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: [bug#48696] [PATCH 3/3] doc: Explain more reasons for commit revocation. Resent-From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 29 May 2021 20:37:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 48696 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix-patches X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: Christopher Baines Cc: 48696@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 48696-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B48696.16223206161938 (code B ref 48696); Sat, 29 May 2021 20:37:02 +0000 Received: (at 48696) by debbugs.gnu.org; 29 May 2021 20:36:56 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57774 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ln5hY-0000VB-EL for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 29 May 2021 16:36:56 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:59674) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ln5hW-0000Uz-Tt for 48696@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 29 May 2021 16:36:55 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:53536) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ln5hR-0001C8-Bf; Sat, 29 May 2021 16:36:49 -0400 Received: from [2a01:e0a:1d:7270:af76:b9b:ca24:c465] (port=41326 helo=ribbon) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ln5hR-0005ok-2I; Sat, 29 May 2021 16:36:49 -0400 From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= References: <20210527123554.4267-1-ludo@gnu.org> <20210527123554.4267-3-ludo@gnu.org> <87v974ey8y.fsf@cbaines.net> <87k0nhg8uh.fsf@gnu.org> <87sg25g4ni.fsf@cbaines.net> X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 10 Prairial an 229 de la =?UTF-8?Q?R=C3=A9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0x090B11993D9AEBB5 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3CE4 6455 8A84 FDC6 9DB4 0CFB 090B 1199 3D9A EBB5 X-OS: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Date: Sat, 29 May 2021 22:36:46 +0200 In-Reply-To: <87sg25g4ni.fsf@cbaines.net> (Christopher Baines's message of "Sat, 29 May 2021 12:28:49 +0100") Message-ID: <87lf7x5lb5.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: guix-patches@gnu.org List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1622320631; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding:resent-cc: resent-from:resent-sender:resent-message-id:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references:list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe: list-subscribe:list-post; bh=fTylO9dxckC5ldbl33kZH2o+frApoApsTYHzE5+nfB8=; b=bYDmFJ4wZTdET8b8J9quKxK4OPY+NF3e36xhpGf/Czj63QQuBM5lJivNpUZXau4HiTEKwu kASOvTeC3Eu0L1VyThP8x/Ynbtb0gng9nf8V3OBmkxWfykLZybIJLouTHrEiprwHafuOWc lBIM72FlFHMPkEaT2Dv4G1saKkeRhfYt3OwURUZadzzH4HOGSL9rP0TmAeb1ZxXiwOVMQZ YMFkFZmGT2A4hQCCfRheq0yzIqjfhEq+0NFje1o6QDtKlg8RLW2s6U4VBa8Go4q7bXEqfx WBgD/unC49jrnFymnyiI7BdhT0VbD1Fd1Lltw4VDALC5QLhAFnL1veK8VfFmDQ== ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1622320631; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=b3XAk4DuCIqUOSw07sDOGCxXOKmr85+s+05U2gAoZ0hYE81aAEDMkQKSEJGvsXFQeZG+jy KBC30jaAAJvJ/Nv6/RcolhLa/iTWzaTAcJB16uNWZgWP7ORt+AI9j8sjccNXuYUGi2vFDj 2L9BrIvebS67zFapo4hmEgpkEtx7IVhu9WBL6wev7yDz5Pa+xvSErzy2qK6ijoEdYSS/ns YlFU/3aY6ChRfFhRGle/bEekyY1rb9XErUvQj9aYQ41KZiqZUY8204B1ZqqsQ4jk+AeAfu GveUuHBcNXSCHFoiw1ApCPj6p+Kb2t0o0WQ+jdbmfBtgJ4/3T2iZk/noM9qC8w== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=none; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-patches-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-patches-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -2.93 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=none; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gnu.org; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-patches-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-patches-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Queue-Id: DDCB01F153 X-Spam-Score: -2.93 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn1.migadu.com X-TUID: sXG0DVVTfa4M Hello! Christopher Baines skribis: > Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: [...] >> The section above is explicitly about cases where the individual did not >> violate the code of conduct (hence =E2=80=9Ceven within the bounds of the >> project's code of conduct=E2=80=9D in the text above), but instead broke >> community expectations. > > I'd like to say that the code of conduct should encapsulate community > expectations, but it does seem just to set out a strong position on > harassment, and I would like to think that the community expectations > are more than just making sure people feel that they're not being > harassed. Yes, that=E2=80=99s what the code of conduct is about, mostly. It does not= say how a development community should cooperate, how it can maximize benefits for everyone involved. I found this article by a Rust developer inspiring: . > Is your intent here for "community expectations" to be/remain abstract, > or for them to be explicitly set out somewhere? My intent with this patch is to spell out expectations for committers, with a concrete implementation. It=E2=80=99s one particular aspect of =E2=80=9Ccommunity expectations=E2=80=9D, but one that I think ought to be = written down, because committers (and maintainers) have a higher responsibility. >>> - Suspected malicious intent >> >> Put this way, the question becomes who is suspecting that. Instead I >> wrote =E2=80=9Cbreaching trust=E2=80=9D in the bullet list above; the in= tent is to >> describe a situation where the individual and other committers no longer >> trust each other, there=E2=80=99s no judgment involved. > > I think the "who" here would be the people looking at removing someones > commit access. Removing someone=E2=80=99s commit access can never be a goal. However, maintainers, like everyone else, can witness a breach of trust at some point. > I like this framing because it's more specific than "breaching trust > through a series of grave incidents". Do you have other things in mind > that this third point as you put it would cover? If repeated incidents happen, some may presume malice, while others may still see =E2=80=9Cmere mistakes=E2=80=9D=E2=80=94we have different thresho= lds. Breach of trust concerns the group as a whole: once there=E2=80=99s mutual suspicion among = some in the group, we can say that cooperation =E2=80=9Cdoesn=E2=80=99t work=E2= =80=9D anymore, that there=E2=80=99s too much friction. >>> - Process problem for giving out commit access >> >> The process for giving commit access is already documented (info "(guix) >> Commit Access"); my intent here was not to change it. > > My point here is just that I think it's reasonable to remove someones > commit access if it was effectively given out in error (because the > process wasn't followed properly, or has been since revised). Oh, got it. To me it=E2=80=99s implicit that commit access can only be obt= ained by following the documented process (that=E2=80=99s indeed be the case since it=E2=80=99s in place); do you think we should be more explicit? Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99.